Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Consent (Sexual)
Options
Comments
-
This thread appears to be an incel party, please don't invite me.
I have two comments about the incel comment.
1) Incels are more likely to be the pro-feminist men as they are so starved for female attention.
2) I feel bad for incels. they have been told to act a certain way to get laid for hte past twenty years, and it is not attractive to women. In the same way a woman who wants male approval isn't attractive imo.0 -
creditcarder wrote: »I have two comments about the incel comment.
1) Incels are more likely to be the pro-feminist men as they are so starved for female attention.
2) I feel bad for incels. they have been told to act a certain way to get laid for hte past twenty years, and it is not attractive to women. In the same way a woman who wants male approval isn't attractive imo.
I said, please don't invite me.0 -
Mariohario wrote: »What would you propose as a solution?
There’s a raft of suggestions here: http://www.drcc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/rapevic.pdf
I’d see victim’s lawyers, courtroom gallery anonymity for the victim, alternate supported civil process where a criminal case is unlikely to succeed, and consideration of special non-jury trials as all potentially improving suggestions.0 -
creditcarder wrote: »Lads, we actually have somebody saying that justice should be changed so that there is more justice. Well, if your a man who has sex with a womanwho had a glass of wine or did not say an explicit yest to every act, than I hope you enjoy your justice.
The current system doesn’t provide justice.0 -
creditcarder wrote: »I have two comments about the incel comment.
1) Incels are more likely to be the pro-feminist men as they are so starved for female attention.
2) I feel bad for incels. they have been told to act a certain way to get laid for hte past twenty years, and it is not attractive to women. In the same way a woman who wants male approval isn't attractive imo.
Meanwhile - actual incels and their relationship with alt-right and supremacist ideology:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328081163_Who_are_Incels_Recognizing_the_Violent_Extremist_Ideology_of_'Incels'
https://haenfler.sites.grinnell.edu/subcultures-and-scenes/incels/0 -
Advertisement
-
Triceratops Ballet wrote: »I think if the objective measure you're using to determine the success of the justice system is that a fair trial is received by the defendant, then yes this looks like a successful system, however if we're saying that only 10% of cases prosecuted result in conviction AND that we don't believe that the other 90% of cases are all false accusations (ie some of those women were actually raped)
Then surely you can see why it does not appear to be a just system.
Even if we said that only 50% of that 90% were genuine cases, that is an awfully high percentage of people who endured whatever the nature of the attack was, then endured the investigation, where they are little more than a piece of evidence, then sat through the trial where they are discussed in whatever fashion deemed necessary to make the case for defence, and then if the burden of evidence is not met by the state they go on to endure the stigma of "being a liar" and "trying to ruin someone's life" (and we're talking about the genuine cases here). Surely you can see how that does not seem like justice to a genuine victim of rape, it doesn't seem like justice to me, and to be honest I'm not sure I'd report it if it happened to me, I don't blame anyone who doesn't report it.
I don't know how anyone manages to report it or has the emotional fortitude to go through that for nothing in most cases.
Well that the defendant receives a fair trial isn’t the only measure by which I observe that the judiciary functions as it is supposed to. I use other measures such as how the victims of rape and sexual crimes are served, and on balance weigh all these factors against each other and the outcomes for society as a whole.
Certainly I can see why some people are of the opinion that the system is unfair, simply because it is not stacked in their favour. But that is not and never was the intent nor purpose of the judiciary whose primary function is the administration of justice. It is not a facility for the victims of other people’s criminal behaviour to receive retribution and compensation. That’s not what restorative justice actually means. Restorative justice applies to society as a whole.
It’s not for nothing either that a victim of a crime should report it to the authorities. The victim should be encouraged in all circumstances to make a report to the authorities, and leave it to the authorities to determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and whether or not to charge a person or persons with a criminal offence. Persons who are accused of a criminal offence have rights which must also be upheld in law, as that is what is meant by the administration of justice. It’s not for the victims to decide that the accused is guilty of committing a criminal offence, and that may well explain why some victims feel that justice will not be served in their favour, which may well put them off making a complaint.
They won’t know that though for certain in their circumstances unless they make a complaint to the authorities and allow the authorities to do their job which is to serve the public, not simply to convict people of criminal offences on the word of the alleged victims.0 -
Meanwhile - actual incels and their relationship with alt-right and supremacist ideology:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328081163_Who_are_Incels_Recognizing_the_Violent_Extremist_Ideology_of_'Incels'
https://haenfler.sites.grinnell.edu/subcultures-and-scenes/incels/
That's convenient. The evil iincels are on the loose.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Well that the defendant receives a fair trial isn’t the only measure by which I observe that the judiciary functions as it is supposed to. I use other measures such as how the victims of rape and sexual crimes are served, and on balance weigh all these factors against each other and the outcomes for society as a whole.
Certainly I can see why some people are of the opinion that the system is unfair, simply because it is not stacked in their favour. But that is not and never was the intent nor purpose of the judiciary whose primary function is the administration of justice. It is not a facility for the victims of other people’s criminal behaviour to receive retribution and compensation. That’s not what restorative justice actually means. Restorative justice applies to society as a whole.
It’s not for nothing either that a victim of a crime should report it to the authorities. The victim should be encouraged in all circumstances to make a report to the authorities, and leave it to the authorities to determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and whether or not to charge a person or persons with a criminal offence. Persons who are accused of a criminal offence have rights which must also be upheld in law, as that is what is meant by the administration of justice. It’s not for the victims to decide that the accused is guilty of committing a criminal offence, and that may well explain why some victims feel that justice will not be served in their favour, which may well put them off making a complaint.
They won’t know that though for certain in their circumstances unless they make a complaint to the authorities and allow the authorities to do their job which is to serve the public, not simply to convict people of criminal offences on the word of the alleged victims.
The system is actively stacked in favour of the accused in most cases. That’s not justice in anyone’s terms - society’s or the victim’s. Nobody is suggesting that the victims get to determine guilt, so not quite sure why you’d air that particular straw man.0 -
Mariohario wrote: »People who are involuntary celibate are individuals, they don't have one hive mind. Some are nice people, some are nasty people.
You seem very au fait.0 -
The system is actively stacked in favour of the accused in most cases. That’s not justice in anyone’s terms - society’s or the victim’s. Nobody is suggesting that the victims get to determine guilt, so not quite sure why you’d air that particular straw man.
No alastair it isn’t. That’s simply a question of your own perception influencing your judgment, and it simply hasn’t the makings of a credible argument. Earlier you referred to “90% of rapists” as though the presumption of innocence wasn’t actually a thing, and that betrayed your own bias, so it would come as no surprise that you imagine that simply because people are entitled to due process in law, that means the system must be stacked in their favour. That is simply not the case.
Triceratops and indeed yourself are suggesting that it should be the victims who determine the guilt of the accused, but again that bypasses the whole presumption of innocence malarkey that you appear to find so inconvenient in the administration of justice. Fortunately for everyone in society they are presumed innocent in law unless when accused of a criminal offence offence their guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. They shouldn’t be held responsible for the DPP taking prosecutions to trial that they are unlikely to win. It should be as the guidelines suggested earlier that the prosecution are expected to manage their witnesses expectations -
Guidelines for lawyers representing complainants in rape cases advise them to “manage the client’s expectations” when advising them on whether to fight a section-three application.
Not just in terms of a section 3 application, but in terms of all aspects in their role as witnesses for the prosecution in a case where it is the defendant is on trial, not the witnesses for the prosecution.0 -
Advertisement
-
This thread appears to be an incel party, please don't invite me.
Well when you see people with 10,000 plus posts and reply to everything on this like a shot perhaps you have a point!.
Anyways
Heres a question.
Would people be in favour of consent classes if it was a man teaching it to women?.
Other way around people thinks fine but this way I gurantee peoples political correct brainwashing kicks in and they wouldn't like it.
Kinda of people who genuinely believe men cant be sexually assualted or preyed upon by women.
Double standards at its finest/worst!.0 -
You seem very au fait.
Okay, worst case scenario. he hasn't had sex in a year and he's an incel. Perhaps he has bad social skills, or just hasn't met the one. Mayeb ugly as a bag of turnips.
Why in the world does that change the value of his opinoin? I mean, men aren't dogs you do know that they can think of more than one thing at a time?0 -
Lonesomerhodes wrote: »Well when you see people with 10,000 plus posts and reply to everything on this like a shot perhaps you have a point!.
Anyways
Heres a question.
Would people be in favour of consent classes if it was a man teaching it to women?.
Other way around people thinks fine but this way I gurantee peoples political correct brainwashing kicks in and they wouldn't like it.
Kinda of people who genuinely believe men cant be sexually assualted or preyed upon by women.
Double standards at its finest/worst!.
At the risk of sounding like I’m in favour of an incel party (I like a party as much as the next person but that sounds like a sausage fest!), but surely you should have allowed people to answer the question before you assumed they were guilty of double standards.
Anyways to answer your question that I don’t particularly find particularly credible, I’m not in favour of ‘consent classes’ of any description, regardless of the sex or gender of the facilitators or the participants. I don’t believe they actually do serve any useful purpose and on balance only appear to heighten people’s anxieties, paranoia and fear of other people. I think a far better approach would be an elementary civics lesson as opposed to an entire class devoted to fuelling fear and suspicion of innocent people.
I don’t imagine anyone here is of the opinion that men and boys cannot be the victims of sexual assault or preyed upon by women, but again it’s simply the case that if people don’t make a complaint to the authorities, they cannot expect the authorities to act to address an incident which hasn’t come to their attention. I would be suggesting and encouraging people to trust the authorities rather than discouraging them from doing so by allowing them to believe that their complaint will not be taken seriously, regardless of whether the victim is male or female.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Well that the defendant receives a fair trial isn’t the only measure by which I observe that the judiciary functions as it is supposed to. I use other measures such as how the victims of rape and sexual crimes are served, and on balance weigh all these factors against each other and the outcomes for society as a whole.
Certainly I can see why some people are of the opinion that the system is unfair, simply because it is not stacked in their favour. But that is not and never was the intent nor purpose of the judiciary whose primary function is the administration of justice. It is not a facility for the victims of other people’s criminal behaviour to receive retribution and compensation. That’s not what restorative justice actually means. Restorative justice applies to society as a whole.
It’s not for nothing either that a victim of a crime should report it to the authorities. The victim should be encouraged in all circumstances to make a report to the authorities, and leave it to the authorities to determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and whether or not to charge a person or persons with a criminal offence. Persons who are accused of a criminal offence have rights which must also be upheld in law, as that is what is meant by the administration of justice. It’s not for the victims to decide that the accused is guilty of committing a criminal offence, and that may well explain why some victims feel that justice will not be served in their favour, which may well put them off making a complaint.
They won’t know that though for certain in their circumstances unless they make a complaint to the authorities and allow the authorities to do their job which is to serve the public, not simply to convict people of criminal offences on the word of the alleged victims.
It's not about stacking the odds in favour of one party or the other.
As it stands the state requires citizens to come forward with evidence that a crime has been committed in order to make society overall safer.
In the cases of those who have been raped they are required to be both witness and evidence, and in order to achieve its objective the state requires them to participate in a process that is highly traumatic, at the end of which they have only a 10% chance of closure, and a 90% chance that nothing will come of it and the trauma on top of trauma was all for naught. If they're unlucky they'll have keyboard warriors the length of the land pick them apart, call them disgusting slutty liars, blah blah blah.
I'm not saying we need to prosecute people on the whims and opinions of people, but we need individuals to give of themselves deeply to participate in the prosecution of criminals for all of our benefit so I think we need to do more that say "ah sure it's your civic duty"
If you have suffered a major trauma, and there is a 90%chance all you'll walk away with is bags more trauma why would you report it?
Nowhere did I say we should let accusers dictate the guilt of the accused. That isn't just either. I'm saying what we have is a system that does not treat all parties to the process fairly and that may be a factor in the under reporting of rapes. I don't think it's a radical idea tbh.0 -
A system that fails to convict 90% of prosecuted rapists, and where a majority of victims don’t have enough faith in the system to actually report the crime, is not a good system. The same would be true of murderers too. That’s not justice.
Surely you mean alleged rapists. You bias is evident for all to see. People like you are a serious danger to society since you don't believe in the concept of innocent till proven guilty and no doubt would be happy to lower the burden of proof simply to bump the statistics to your liking.
A very dangerous game that.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »Your comment is an absurdity unless you give an example of how the system can be improved without lowering the burden of proof, though I seriously doubt you can.
Your "it's failing victims... In judgement" sentence makes no sense to me.
They lowered the burden of proof on US College Campuses.....what they got was a s##tshow....the numbers reporting rape/sexual assault is still extremely low and of those that were reported over half of them were dismissed.
So either the Feminists are guilty of fabricating a rape crisis...or women are too afraid to contemplate reporting a rape no matter how low the burden of proof.
I like to think that ordinary women do not subscribe to this culture of victimhood that has contaminated due process on US campuses.
The amount of what could be described as false accusations was extremely low also.
Bad data leads to bad policy, but it eventually it catches up with whomever is pushing it, it remains to be seen for how long more this kind of manipulation of stats will be tolerated.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »Surely you mean alleged rapists. You bias is evident for all to see. People like you are a serious danger to society since you don't believe in the concept of innocent till proven guilty and no doubt would be happy to lower the burden of proof simply to bump the statistics to your liking.
A very dangerous game that.
ma!e feminism in on the rise0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »They lowered the burden of proof on US College Campuses.....what they got was a s##tshow....the numbers reporting rape/sexual assault is still extremely low and of those that were reported over half of them were dismissed.
So either the Feminists are guilty of fabricating a rape crisis...or women are too afraid to contemplate reporting a rape no matter how low the burden of proof.
I like to think that ordinary women do not subscribe to this culture of victimhood that has contaminated due process on US campuses.
The amount of what could be described as false accusations was extremely low also.
Bad data leads to bad policy, but it eventually it catches up with whomever is pushing it, it remains to be seen for how long more this kind of manipulation of stats will be tolerated.
They broadly don't.0 -
Triceratops Ballet wrote: »It's not about stacking the odds in favour of one party or the other.
Your posts certainly sound like you’re arguing in favour of stacking the odds against a defendant, which would be considered an infringement on their right to a fair trial, and in those circumstances could lead to more appeals and convictions being overturned as unsafe.Triceratops Ballet wrote: »As it stands the state requires citizens to come forward with evidence that a crime has been committed in order to make society overall safer.
In the cases of those who have been raped they are required to be both witness and evidence, and in order to achieve its objective the state requires them to participate in a process that is highly traumatic, at the end of which they have only a 10% chance of closure, and a 90% chance that nothing will come of it and the trauma on top of trauma was all for naught. If they're unlucky they'll have keyboard warriors the length of the land pick them apart, call them disgusting slutty liars, blah blah blah.
I'm not saying we need to prosecute people on the whims and opinions of people, but we need individuals to give of themselves deeply to participate in the prosecution of criminals for all of our benefit so I think we need to do more that say "ah sure it's your civic duty"
If you have suffered a major trauma, and there is a 90%chance all you'll walk away with is bags more trauma why would you report it?
That 90% failure to convict rate is an overall figure as opposed to an accurate representation of the odds in each and every individual case. Some cases as we know are stronger than others and the prospect of a conviction is much greater than in another case where the prospect of a successful prosecution may be much lower. It depends upon the circumstances in each and every case as to whether or not a prosecution may even be considered, let alone whether it would be successful or not, particularly if a defendant is pleading not guilty. Judges tend to punish people who are found guilty much more harshly than if they had plead guilty and saved everyone the arduous process of a trial. The accused who pleads not guilty is entitled to a trial though, and a fair trial at that.
With regard to people’s opinions of the victims, it should surely be obvious from just this thread alone that the accused is often the subject of suspicion and doubt even following a trial where they were found not guilty. People’s opinions however have no effect in law, and everyone has the right to legal recourse in those circumstances too in order to protect their good name (although defamation procedures are prohibitively expensive for most ordinary people and can result in what’s commonly known as the Streisand effect).Triceratops Ballet wrote: »Nowhere did I say we should let accusers dictate the guilt of the accused. That isn't just either. I'm saying what we have is a system that does not treat all parties to the process fairly and that may be a factor in the under reporting of rapes. I don't think it's a radical idea tbh.
But the only party for which there are any consequences in law is the accused? There are no consequences in law for the complainant whereas the accused should they be found guilty is likely to be deprived of their liberty. All parties to the process are treated fairly and their rights in law are upheld. Witnesses for the prosecution because they are not on trial and therefore face no consequences in law are not entitled to the same consideration in law as the accused. Unfortunately there is that perception among victims who are in no doubt about the guilt of the accused that the system is unfair to them, but that is due to an unfortunate misunderstanding and misguided expectations of the judicial system. If victims aren’t prepared to trust the system, that doesn’t mean that the system is at fault, it simply means that everyone needs to better understand how the judicial system actually works. It works far more in their favour than it doesn’t, and should they ever find themselves on the opposite side of the fence accused of a crime they do not feel they are guilty of committing, they may well be relieved that the presumption of innocence is actually a thing.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Your posts certainly sound like you’re arguing in favour of stacking the odds against a defendant, which would be considered an infringement on their right to a fair trial, and in those circumstances could lead to more appeals and convictions being overturned as unsafe.
That 90% failure to convict rate is an overall figure as opposed to an accurate representation of the odds in each and every individual case. Some cases as we know are stronger than others and the prospect of a conviction is much greater than in another case where the prospect of a successful prosecution may be much lower. It depends upon the circumstances in each and every case as to whether or not a prosecution may even be considered, let alone whether it would be successful or not, particularly if a defendant is pleading not guilty. Judges tend to punish people who are found guilty much more harshly than if they had plead guilty and saved everyone the arduous process of a trial. The accused who pleads not guilty is entitled to a trial though, and a fair trial at that.
With regard to people’s opinions of the victims, it should surely be obvious from just this thread alone that the accused is often the subject of suspicion and doubt even following a trial where they were found not guilty. People’s opinions however have no effect in law, and everyone has the right to legal recourse in those circumstances too in order to protect their good name (although defamation procedures are prohibitively expensive for most ordinary people and can result in what’s commonly known as the Streisand effect).
But the only party for which there are any consequences in law is the accused? There are no consequences in law for the complainant whereas the accused should they be found guilty is likely to be deprived of their liberty. All parties to the process are treated fairly and their rights in law are upheld. Witnesses for the prosecution because they are not on trial and therefore face no consequences in law are not entitled to the same consideration in law as the accused. Unfortunately there is that perception among victims who are in no doubt about the guilt of the accused that the system is unfair to them, but that is due to an unfortunate misunderstanding and misguided expectations of the judicial system. If victims aren’t prepared to trust the system, that doesn’t mean that the system is at fault, it simply means that everyone needs to better understand how the judicial system actually works. It works far more in their favour than it doesn’t, and should they ever find themselves on the opposite side of the fence accused of a crime they do not feel they are guilty of committing, they may well be relieved that the presumption of innocence is actually a thing.
I understand that there are no legal consequences for the accuser in a case. What I am saying is that the person who has made the accusation, who will actually be a victim in some cases is considered as a piece of evidence in a case, and treated as such. Again I'm not saying their word should dictate the outcome but the process should acknowledge that this is a trying set of circumstances for an individual to undergo and while this person is a witness /evidence they are still a person and the ability to compartmentalise to the extent that they can remove themselves from the equation and see the bigger picture of how their actions benefit society, above the multiple ordeals they've gone through is not exceptionally common. Unlike other crimes rape is a crime where the crime scene is somebodies body and it is difficult for victims to disassociate from that, and I think that fact should be considered in the process of reporting a rape and preparing for trial. Even if it simply means a court appointed individual who supports the accuser through the trial and process, so they don't feel passed from pillar to post, and used all over again.
Maybe trial isn't the best option always, I've read about some instances in other countries where victims chose to confront their rapists in a more mediative style, just them the accused and a mediator. It's not suitable for all cases, it doesn't result in a criminal charge but possibly worth exploring. Again though bags of emotional fortitude required it may help with closure for victims who find themselves in a my word against theirs scenario. I think there's a Ted talk about it, I'm too tired to go looking for it now tho0 -
Advertisement
-
Triceratops Ballet wrote: »Maybe trial isn't the best option always, I've read about some instances in other countries where victims chose to confront their rapists in a more mediative style, just them the accused and a mediator. It's not suitable for all cases, it doesn't result in a criminal charge but possibly worth exploring. Again though bags of emotional fortitude required it may help with closure for victims who find themselves in a my word against theirs scenario. I think there's a Ted talk about it, I'm too tired to go looking for it now tho
Yeah I get where you’re coming from, that’s the restorative justice model I referred to earlier which is becoming more popular in certain types of cases involving domestic violence and sexual assault/rape etc, and for sure it’s frought with difficulty from all sides, but in some circumstances it has proven to be more effective than a trial -
Beware the dangers of restorative justice
That is of course if cases are handled correctly, and it’s not suitable for all circumstances either.
The rest of your post though, there are numerous victim support groups and organisations which provide support for victims of abuse. Frankly in my experience they can be a bit hit and miss, depends upon a number of different factors, and sometimes they can just miss out on the obvious so badly that it can be even more damaging to the victim when their circumstances aren’t given adequate and proper consideration, as was in the case of a Brazilian woman who was the victim of rape here, whom it wasn’t explained to her the differences between the judicial system here and in her home country -
Justice White was asked about the controversy caused by a comment he made earlier this year in relation to the rape of a Brazilian woman.
During the trial he said, on reading the victim impact report, he did not believe the rape had “a profound psychological effect” on the victim. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre took issue with that at the time, saying it hoped judges and legal professionals would take part in education programmes to help them better understand the consequences of sexual crimes.
Yesterday, the retired judge reiterated that in that case he took a view that in the victim impact statement, the victim seemed to have a considerable interest in compensation for the offence.
“She was a non-national, and afterwards the rape crisis centre commented that was the approach in her particular country,” he said.
“Certainly, that was not something I was aware of. But neither apparently were the prosecuting authorities. Whether or not it is correct, I do not know. I don’t believe the judges need training in relation to sentencing in cases of a sexual nature.”
Victim impact statements ‘used to influence judges’
That was just a particularly memorable occasion when both the prosecuting authorities and the support services she was receiving failed to take into account her particular circumstances and they goofed pretty badly. It’s not uncommon, and when it does happen it doesn’t mean the system is at fault, it means that whoever was responsible for her welfare dropped the ball.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »No alastair it isn’t. That’s simply a question of your own perception influencing your judgment, and it simply hasn’t the makings of a credible argument. Earlier you referred to “90% of rapists” as though the presumption of innocence wasn’t actually a thing, and that betrayed your own bias, so it would come as no surprise that you imagine that simply because people are entitled to due process in law, that means the system must be stacked in their favour. That is simply not the case.
Triceratops and indeed yourself are suggesting that it should be the victims who determine the guilt of the accused, but again that bypasses the whole presumption of innocence malarkey that you appear to find so inconvenient in the administration of justice. Fortunately for everyone in society they are presumed innocent in law unless when accused of a criminal offence offence their guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. They shouldn’t be held responsible for the DPP taking prosecutions to trial that they are unlikely to win. It should be as the guidelines suggested earlier that the prosecution are expected to manage their witnesses expectations -
Guidelines for lawyers representing complainants in rape cases advise them to “manage the client’s expectations” when advising them on whether to fight a section-three application.
Not just in terms of a section 3 application, but in terms of all aspects in their role as witnesses for the prosecution in a case where it is the defendant is on trial, not the witnesses for the prosecution.
One more time for luck. 90% of prosecuted rapists should not be escaping convictions. That’s a ratio not evident in any other area of criminal prosecutions - it’s an obvious outlier. That’s not demonstrating any due process other than a failure to convict to an undue degree associated with the number of prosecutions.
Nobody has suggested that victims should determine guilt. That’s entirely a product of your own vivid imagination. Please stop the embarrassment of pushing that lie.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »Surely you mean alleged rapists. You bias is evident for all to see. People like you are a serious danger to society since you don't believe in the concept of innocent till proven guilty and no doubt would be happy to lower the burden of proof simply to bump the statistics to your liking.
A very dangerous game that.
I don’t believe in the notion of presumption of innocence outside a criminal trial. Primarily because no such thing exists in any legislation, anywhere. I’m entirely happy that it exists within criminal trials. Perhaps the ‘serious danger’ is flat earth beliefs such as universal presumption of innocence?0 -
Silentcorner wrote: »They lowered the burden of proof on US College Campuses.....what they got was a s##tshow....the numbers reporting rape/sexual assault is still extremely low and of those that were reported over half of them were dismissed.
So either the Feminists are guilty of fabricating a rape crisis...or women are too afraid to contemplate reporting a rape no matter how low the burden of proof.
I like to think that ordinary women do not subscribe to this culture of victimhood that has contaminated due process on US campuses.
The amount of what could be described as false accusations was extremely low also.
Bad data leads to bad policy, but it eventually it catches up with whomever is pushing it, it remains to be seen for how long more this kind of manipulation of stats will be tolerated.
Demonstration of ‘bad stats’ - zilch.
Evidence of campus ****show? - none.0 -
I don’t believe in the notion of presumption of innocence outside a criminal trial.
Then you simply don't believe in it. If it's ok for someone to have their livelihood destroyed on the basis of an unproven allegation, the presumption of innocence serves no meaningful purpose.
As far as I'm concerned, it should be illegal to name individuals accused of a crime until after they have been found guilty, and if they aren't, they should remain anonymous in perpetuity. Trial by social media can f*ck someone's life up just as much as a criminal conviction these days.0 -
One more time for luck. ...
Nobody has suggested that victims should determine guilt. That’s entirely a product of your own vivid imagination. Please stop the embarrassment of pushing that lie.
the stats don't look good, but in a 'he said, she said' situation, its pretty much always going to be like that0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »At the risk of sounding like I’m in favour of an incel party (I like a party as much as the next person but that sounds like a sausage fest!), but surely you should have allowed people to answer the question before you assumed they were guilty of double standards.
Anyways to answer your question that I don’t particularly find particularly credible, I’m not in favour of ‘consent classes’ of any description, regardless of the sex or gender of the facilitators or the participants. I don’t believe they actually do serve any useful purpose and on balance only appear to heighten people’s anxieties, paranoia and fear of other people. I think a far better approach would be an elementary civics lesson as opposed to an entire class devoted to fuelling fear and suspicion of innocent people.
I don’t imagine anyone here is of the opinion that men and boys cannot be the victims of sexual assault or preyed upon by women, but again it’s simply the case that if people don’t make a complaint to the authorities, they cannot expect the authorities to act to address an incident which hasn’t come to their attention. I would be suggesting and encouraging people to trust the authorities rather than discouraging them from doing so by allowing them to believe that their complaint will not be taken seriously, regardless of whether the victim is male or female.
Good post yes I agree consent classes fuel fear paranoia anxiety etc etc but its incredibly sexiest as all these fears and paranoia are aimed against men!. All of them. Every one of them.
Do people here genuinely think women will go to consent classes run by men?. Honestly.
Not a snowballs chance in hell.
So why should a man go to a consent class by a woman?
What qualifies her?
Has she been to consent classses?
Will she speak against women sexually assualting men?
What education she got?
I gurantee ya the people running these classses simpletons part of some NGO raking it in to push unbelievable paranoia and misandry against men.
I am of the opinion that many here believe men cant be sexually assaulted so we agree to disagree on that one.
The consent classes are run by women who are deeply biased against men all their talk is disturbing and slightly unhinged actually.
The whole "consent class" and "rape culture" movements are so biased against men and full of misandry its almost unbelievable.
Its a movement that says all men are potential rapists and that language has been used by them many a time.
Could you imagine a movement by men saying all women are potential paedophiles? Wonder how long that one last eh?.
The movements misandry is only paper thin concealed when you look at objectively. Most will never however. We've had the appropriate political correct brainwashing to ensure any critical thought never ever even happens and thus this Americanised nonsense can come into Ireland fueling hatred of men and costing the taxpayer God knows how many millions in the long run.
Until you see men teaching consent classes to women you know the movement is 100% biased against men.
Truth hurts as Lizzo sang!.0 -
One more time for luck. 90% of prosecuted rapists should not be escaping convictions. That’s a ratio not evident in any other area of criminal prosecutions - it’s an obvious outlier. That’s not demonstrating any due process other than a failure to convict to an undue degree associated with the number of prosecutions.
90% of people accused of committing the criminal offence of rape aren’t escaping convictions though, they’re being found not guilty in the majority of cases, because the prosecution are failing to make their case in order for a jury of their peers to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That to me suggests that the system works to uphold people’s rights.Nobody has suggested that victims should determine guilt. That’s entirely a product of your own vivid imagination. Please stop the embarrassment of pushing that lie.
What exactly are you suggesting then? Because it certainly seems like you’re suggesting people who are accused of the criminal offence of rape should be found guilty based solely on the word of the alleged victims in order to address the low conviction rate for people accused of the criminal offence of rape. At the very least it sounds like you’re suggesting that people accused of the criminal offence of rape should be denied the right to a fair trial.0 -
Lonesomerhodes wrote: »Do people here genuinely think women will go to consent classes run by men?. Honestly.
I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here.
I reckon more girls need to attend consent classes, in general, whoever they're run by. understand what constitutes giving consent, learn how to withdraw consent, that kind of thing0 -
Advertisement
-
Quantum Erasure wrote: »I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here.
I reckon more girls need to attend consent classes, in general, whoever they're run by. understand what constitutes giving consent, learn how to withdraw consent, that kind of thing
I'm focusing on the OP pal.
See your bias against men in the post above ie women should go to classes to see how to withdraw consent?.
Why not what constitutes consent with men same as men are thought (those crazy enough to attend these intelligence insulting classes).
The bias against men in this thread is astounding. If you could bottle it be a millionaire!.
I have seen seen pissed out of their minds hen do's grab married men by the crotch in bars/clubs etc.
No consent given.
The men were embarrassed, horrified and humiliated often.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement